1) Field of the Invention
The present invention combines 1) biometrics (fingerprint scans, iris scans, facial recognition scans, DNA, . . . ) with 2) a separate and secure network and email infrastructure, 3) email management processes, and 4) the addition of text, audio and visual format options to sending emails messages; all within the integrated, coordinated, easy-to-use framework of a fully certified email system. The result is a complete solution with major improvements in 1) sender and recipient identity verification, 2) security and privacy, 3) proof of delivery, and 4) effectiveness in communications, during the exchange of certified email messages and attachments while using the Invention.
2) Prior Art
The use of electronic mail (email) and attachments have grown substantially over the last few decades. Unfortunately, so have the problems of identity verification, security, privacy and proof of delivery; not to mention all the spam, viruses, and other harmful malware which has become the norm with using the popular, everyday email systems like HOTMAIL, AOL, GMAIL and even OUTLOOK. And, most use the “very public and very vulnerable” Internet as their worldwide network.
Millions of these international email users receive emails and attachments from people they don't know or from people they are not certain as to whether “they are who they say they are”. The challenge is, how does a recipient determine the legitimacy or know the true intentions of the sender in the world of the “Unvetted Public Internet”. Before a user opens their latest emails and/or attachments, they pause and worry; even when the senders' names are familiar to them, like a friend or their local banker. The questions—“is that really you?” and “what are your intentions?” haunts every recipient as they decide to either open or delete the latest entries in their Inbox. And, as spam filters try to assist, they often catch the good emails (with the bad) that users do want, causing them to continually review the contents of the spam log to identify and retrieve them for normal viewing.
Even the senders of emails worry and wonder if what they send gets to the right location or to the intended person, especially when exchanging important (e.g., confidential), high-value email messages and files. When the user hits the “send” button they are not certain that their message is secure, private, or if it gets to their named recipient or falls into the hands of an unintended recipient. Many emails never get to their intended recipient (for a variety of reasons) and that both the sender and recipient are never notified of that fact? In addition, if proof of delivery is important, how can senders prove the email got to the right location, the intended recipient and whether it was viewed and/or downloaded by the correct person? Or, might it have gone to, or been intercepted by, someone maliciously pretending to be the recipient? Or, might the recipient say they never received it when they actually did? All it takes these days in most everyday email systems is to know someone's User ID and password and they can wreak havoc in their personal or professional lives, or even cause the demise of a publicly traded company if insider information (within an email message) is stolen or intercepted by those not intended to see such confidential information. For more sophisticated intruders, many other tools and techniques are available to intercept and disrupt a supposedly-private communication.
Some earlier (so-called) certified email efforts have produced companies that have tried to provide certification services (to prove the trustworthiness of the senders). But, they do so within the low-security infrastructure of the popular, everyday email systems like HOTMAIL, AOL, GMAIL and OUTLOOK and the “very public and very vulnerable” Internet they use as their worldwide network. Plus, they allow marketing companies to become users of their service, which then try to give their mass number of recipients the feeling that their emails are worthy of opening. So, the sender of certified email in this environment may not have included a virus or malware in it, but it's still “junk mail” (a.k.a. unwanted spam) if it was unsolicited.
As a result, millions of senders and recipients worldwide spend billions of dollars each year to exchange “paper documents” via FEDEX, UPS, Certified Postal Mail, and other international package delivery services; often simply to insure that the documents get there and to have some way of proving it. Although, these services simply get their package to “an adult at the address specified”, and make no guaranteed (or effort) to get it to the person named on the delivery form. Such delivery concerns, even minimally resolved, are causing senders and recipients to endure these substantial expenses and time delays. Many of these same documents could easily be exchanged electronically in their everyday email systems, but they require 1) recipient identity verification, 2) security and privacy and 3) proof of delivery.
Also, with busy days and hectic schedules few people talk directly these days and often settle to exchange email messages and attachments. But, textual (word based) email messages are one-dimensional, cumbersome to type, require use of a keyboard, are lacking in precision, add to confusion (e.g., what did they really mean by that?) and filled with popular typing short cuts like  or  to try and add emphasis.
To fully and effectively communicate in an email message, the sender must have 3 message format options (text, audio and visual), plus some number of attachments. This is because in human communications, when two parties are not physically together, the exchange can involve only these 3 dimensions (i.e., smell and touch being the missing dimensions). It has been proven that this type of 3-dimension message configuration has the following value and effectiveness for each of the three; 7% to the words (text), 38% to “how” they are audibly spoken (e.g., intonation, cadence, modulation . . . ) and 55% to the body language (the visual) of the speaker.
So, with a maximum of 100% effectiveness as a possibility, a text-only email message can be no more than 7% as effective as a comparable visual (video) message, with sound. An audio-only email message can be no more than 45% as effective as a comparable visual message, with sound. The “benchmark” against which all remote communications are valued in effectiveness are based on a visual message with sound that allows the recipient to hear the words spoken and see the speaker's body language (e.g., facial expressions, posture, hand motions, head motion and so on). Yet, even if 100% effective communication options were possible today in most popular message exchanges, many senders and recipients would be reluctant to use them for fear that such crisp, clear and concise messages might fall into improper hands due to lesser security and greater vulnerability of popular, public-Internet-based email systems.
This section conveys competitors and existing solutions available in the market today and highlights why they are an inadequate solutions when compared to those provided by the Invention documented herein.
3) Prior Existing Solutions                1. GOODMAIL                    a. The design is focused on “pre-confirming” so-called “good senders” through the public email network to assure recipients that the senders are legitimate            b. But their solution is inadequate because:                            i. They do not offer recipient proof of delivery features, and                ii. They do not offer a separate, secure network and infrastructure and email management system, and thus cannot provide adequate levels of security and privacy, and                iii. They do utilize existing open/public email systems and thus are vulnerable to their same inadequacies in security and privacy, and                iv. They do not accommodate very large attachments, and                v. They do not support voice or visual (video) email message formats, and                vi. They do not offer biometric identity verification.                                                2. READNOTIFY                    a. This provides an email proof of delivery system as an add on to existing email systems            b. But their solution is inadequate because:                            i. They do provide limited proof of delivery, but they do not confirm the identity of the recipient or sender, and                ii. They do not offer a separate, secure network and infrastructure and email management system, and thus can not provide adequate levels of security and privacy, and                iii. They do utilize existing open/public email systems and thus are vulnerable to their same inadequacies in security and privacy, and                iv. They do not provide for very large attachments, and                v. They do not support audio or visual (video) email message formats, and                vi. They do not offer biometric identity verification.                                                3. POINT OF MAIL                    a. This is a proof of delivery system that will tell you an IP address that read or opened a message within an existing email system            b. But their solution is inadequate because:                            i. They are not able to authenticate the identity of a recipient or a sender, and                ii. They do not offer a separate, secure network and infrastructure and email management system, and thus can not provide adequate levels of security and privacy, and                iii. They do utilize existing open/public email systems and thus are vulnerable to their same inadequacies in security and privacy, and                iv. They do not address the need for large attachments, and                v. They do not support voice or video email messages, and                vi. They do not offer biometric identity verification.                                                4. RPOST                    a. They offer features to support proof of delivery to a specific computer            b. But their solution is inadequate because:                            i. They can not confirm the identity of a recipient, or the sender, and                ii. They do not offer a separate, secure network and infrastructure and email management system, and thus can not provide adequate levels of security and privacy, and                iii. They do utilize existing open/public email systems and thus are vulnerable to their same inadequacies in security and privacy, and                iv. They do not provide for large attachments, and                v. They do not support audio or video email message formats, and                vi. They do not offer biometric identity verification.                                                5. DIGI-SIGN                    a. They offer encryption technology as a means for security which requires the recipient to obtain the decryption software and a key.            b. But their solution is inadequate because:                            i. They are not able to prove with biometric certainty that a message was received, and                ii. They do not offer a separate, secure network and infrastructure and email management system, and thus can not provide adequate levels of security and privacy, and                iii. They do utilize existing open/public email systems and thus are vulnerable to their same inadequacies in security and privacy, and                iv. They do not provide for large attachments, and                v. They do not support audio or video email message formats.                                                6. WHALE MAIL                    a. They provide the ability to send large files using their own FTP system            b. But their solution is inadequate because:                            i. They are focused on the files and not both the message and files (attachments) combination, and                ii. They do offer a separate network and infrastructure, but are not adequate in their levels of security, privacy and identity verification as is required for the exchange of confidential, high-value messages and files, and                iii. They are not able to prove with biometric certainty that a large file was received or sent by specific users, and                iv. They do not support integrated audio or video email messages, unless as an “out of context” attachment, and                v. They do not support adequate identity verification of both sender and recipient                vi. They do not offer biometric identity verification.                                                7. YOUSENDIT                    a. They provide the ability to send large files using their own FTP system            b. But their solution is inadequate because:                            i. They are focused on the files and not both the email message and attachments combination, and                ii. They do offer a separate network and infrastructure, but are not adequate in their levels of security, privacy and identity verification as is required for the exchange of confidential, high-value messages and files, and                iii. They are not able to prove with biometric certainty that a large file was received, and                iv. They do not support integrated voice or visual message formats, unless as an “out of context” attachment, and                v. They do not support adequate identity verification of both sender and recipient                vi. They do not offer biometric identity verification.                                                8. DIGITAL PERSONA                    a. They offer biometric security and identity verification products and capability            b. But their solution is inadequate because:                            i. it does not provide a system or infrastructure to send secure email messages and attachments, and                ii. it does not provide a system or infrastructure to receive secure messages and attachments, and                iii. It does not have the ability to exchange audio email messages, and                iv. It does not have the ability to exchange visual (video) email messages, and                v. It does not have the ability to send large files.                                                9. Package/Shipping Companies (FEDEX, UPS, DHL & USPO)                    a. They focus on package delivery with tracking and delivery dependability. They use private networks to allow for control, tracking and traceability, but they ship to “any adult” at the address specified, and not to a specific person            b. But their solutions are inadequate because:                            i. They take a day or more to deliver a physical package as compared to email systems which delivery electronically, and                ii. They delivery to an address, not to a specific person, and                iii. They do not confirm the recipient; any adult at the address specified can sign for delivery, and                iv. They do not offer biometric identity verification of either a sender or recipient, and                v. They do not allow the integrated delivery of electronic emails and attachments, and                vi. They do not accommodate expedited delivery of very large attachments, except on CD or other media on an overnight basis, and                vii. They do not support expedited delivery of voice or video message formats, except on CD or other media on an overnight basis.                                                